welcome to ietf. :-((( It happens to me also and I know others who had the same issue. It was raised before. Marc. -- Monday, August 30, 2004 11:06:28 +0200 Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote/a ecrit: > Hi. > > If I understood the IETF correctly, it is an organization based > on the work of volunteers and their contributions. Correct me, if > I'm wrong. > > I'd like to question the way IETF treats it's contributors. > > > Some time ago I've written a proposal about how to prevent > forged e-mails in order to fight spam and published it as an > I-D (RMX). This was also the first posting ever to the IRTF's > ASRG mailing list and subject of discussion for months. > > Within this discussion another proposal (SPF) was raised, > explicitely introduced as based on RMX and intended to cover it. > Some time later, Microsoft published it's CallerID proposal, again > influenced by RMX. > > The IETF founded the MARID working group which solely focussed on > those mailer authorization records in DNS (MARID is exactly that > acronym). > > MARID produced a new proposal called SenderID, which was introduced > as a melt of SPF and CallerID. Actually, some properties > characteristic for CallerID and newer versions of SPF have been > omitted, thus the SenderID core draft does not significantly > differ from RMX and the results of discussions about RMX. SenderID > is mostly taken from RMX. > > Is that bad? No. Contributing to IETF means feeding for derivative > work. Developing network protocols means necessarily cooperation and > evolution, and that's impossible without derivative work. After all, > why should someone submit an I-D, if not to get other people's > comments and to invite other's for derivative work. If someone > derivates his work from your's, then this is a validation that your > work was usable and interesting, and that someone actually read your > paper. So there's nothing wrong about derivative work per se, and > that's an essential part of the way, the IETF works (at least in my > eyes, correct me if I'm wrong). > > But in my opinion, the least a contributor can expect is that > derivative work based on his contribution does acknowledge and cite > the contribution correctly and does not pass the contribution as > someone else's work. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > The SenderID core draft does not cite RMX adequatly. > I have asked the MARID and ASRG chairs that RMX is cited correctly > when turning the SenderID draft into an RFC. They denied. It's a > commercial Microsoft and Pobox show. > > While on one hand the chairs do more or less acknowledge or at least > not deny, that SenderID is based on and close to RMX, they do on the > other hand refuse to cite RMX properly. As a reason they give, that > IETF is under US law, and under US law the copyright protects only > against literal plagiarisms, i.e. cut-and-paste, but not against > paraphrased derivatives. Since I had therefore no legal copyright > claims against SenderID, I will not be cited, as I was told. > > I am not that experienced with US laws yet, but I can hardly imagine > that this is correct. If this was correct, I could easily republish any > book under my name just by paraphrasing it's contents. I bet I'd be in > trouble if I tried to do so. > > But forget legal issues for a moment, these are to be discussed > elsewhere. I'd like to ask you for your personal opinion, not your > legal knowledge or appraisal: > > > Is that the way IETF treats it's contributors? > Is that considered as fair and honest? > > > regards > Hadmut Danisch > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ------------------------------------------ Marc Blanchet Hexago tel: +1-418-266-5533x225 ------------------------------------------ http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity ------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf